this order to the contractual employees was concerned. It would, thus, be applicable to all contractual employees as on 22.5.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner was one of them. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the office order dated 16/17.11.1998. The stand which has been taken by the respondents for denying the benefit to the petitioner is that his appointment was on contractual basis and, therefore, his service conditions were governed by that, would not be a good ground, for the reason that other contractual employees were also appointed on purely contractual basis with their terms and conditions also specified therein but still they were held entitled to the said benefit and were granted as well. The judgment in Charanjit Singh's case (supra) , would thus not be applicable to the case in hand. Similarly, the contention of the counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Mishra's case (supra) would also not be applicable to this case as the present case is one where the petitioner had a right of consideration on the date when this office order i.e. 22.5.1998 came into effect and the petitioner on all fours is covered by the ambit and applicability of the order itself, he being a contractual employee. This is not a case where some benefit has been granted and is being claimed as a precedent but it is a case where the employee is in service on the date the order is passed and, therefore, would be applicable entitling him ipso facto the benefits. The contentions, thus, as raised by the respondents not accepting the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as the same is neither justified nor in accordance with the office order dated 17/18.11.1998 (Annexure P-6).
